Judge Cuts Some Claims From Turkey Price-Fixing Class Action Lawsuit

A federal judge has cut several claims from a turkey price-fixing class action lawsuit.

Judge Virginia M. Kendall on Monday granted defendant Agri Stats Inc.’s motion to dismiss claims of unjust enrichment without prejudice. She also dismissed consumer protection claims in Utah and Arkansas with prejudice.

Because plaintiff Sandee’s Catering has voluntarily withdrawn its claims regarding consumer protection in Missouri and Rhode Island, Judge Kendall also dismissed those claims with prejudice.

The defendant’s motion to dismiss federal antitrust claims and all other state claims was denied.

Plaintiffs in two consolidated class action lawsuits allege that major poultry producers conspired to increase turkey prices for consumers.

The plaintiffs claim a small number of companies provide the entire supply for the U.S. turkey market. Those suppliers were also named as defendants, along with Agri Stats, which is a data company that provides information on pricing.

The class action lawsuits claim the turkey producers conspired from at least 2010 through 2017 to artificially inflate turkey prices for direct purchasers.

Agri Stats stands accused of facilitating the turkey prices conspiracy by allowing the poultry producers to “exchange sensitive information about their production and supply of turkey.”

According to the plaintiffs, the defendants violated federal antitrust laws, as well as laws in 28 states.

In dismissing the claims of unjust enrichment, Judge Kendall wrote that Sandee’s Catering had failed to clearly state under which laws or states it wanted to bring the claims, meaning it did not meet the requirements for such a claim.

“Such pleading has made it exceedingly difficult for the Court and the Defendants to know under which jurisdictions Plaintiff would like to proceed, let alone what Plaintiff needs to allege in order to bring a claim under the state-specific unjust enrichment laws,” Judge Kendall wrote.

While Sandee’s Catering argued claims of unjust enrichment may be similar throughout the U.S., the company has failed “to account for any consequential differences that may exist among the undifferentiated state-law claims,” Judge Kendall’s opinion said.

“The bald assertion that the alleged antitrust conduct violates dozens of non-antitrust laws, or the implication that there are no consequential differences between those laws, is not entitled to deference, because ‘the tenet that a court must accept as true all of the allegations contained in a complaint is inapplicable to legal conclusions.”

Judge Kendall’s opinion also examined the claims of violations of state antitrust laws individually, determining all but the Utah and Arkansas claims could move forward. 

The Utah claims were dismissed because none of the named plaintiffs is a citizen or resident of the state.

Judge Kendall dismissed the Arkansas claims after determining Sandee’s Catering couldn’t bring a claim under the the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act.

“[P]rice-fixing antitrust cases are non-actionable under Arkansas law because the ‘Eighth Circuit (of which Arkansas is a part) has held that this catch-all must be interpreted in light of the enumerated conduct, such that it only serves to prohibit other instances of ‘false representation, fraud, or the improper use of economic leverage,’’” Judge Kendall wrote, citing a similar antitrust lawsuit.

The defendants had also argued that Sandee’s Catering’s claims should be barred by the statute of limitations.

Judge Kendall disagreed.

“It is premature to dismiss Sandee’s claims on statute of limitations grounds as there is nothing in the Complaint to find it obviously time-barred,” she wrote, declining to bar either the federal or state claims.

Kraft Heinz, also named as a defendant, filed a separate motion for dismissal on the grounds that it couldn’t be involved in the alleged turkey prices conspiracy because it is not a turkey supplier.

Judge Kendall granted Kraft Heinz’s motion, saying Sandee’s Catering had “failed to state a claim against Kraft because the only price and cost data alleged are prices and costs associated with whole turkeys. Sandee’s does not allege any pricing information for processed turkey products like deli meats which Kraft sells.”

Sandee’s Catering has 21 days to amend their complaint so it is consistent with Judge Kendall’s order.

Do you think the judge was right in cutting the claims from the class action lawsuit? Have you been affected by turkey price-fixing? Tell us your thoughts in the comment section below.

The plaintiff is represented by Robert A. Clifford and Shannon M. McNulty of Clifford Law Offices PC; and Jonathan W. Cuneo, Joel Davidow, Daniel Cohen and Blaine Finley of Cuneo Gilbert & Laduca LLP.

The Turkey Prices Class Action Lawsuit is Sandee’s Catering v. Agri Stats Inc., et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-02295, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.

Read About More Class Action Lawsuits & Class Action Settlements:

• $75M Price-Fixing Deal To End Jeld-Wen, Masonite Molded Interior Doors Class Action Lawsuit
• Tyson Class Action Lawsuit Says Beef Prices Are Inflated
• Is USKO Express Inc. Underpaying Their Truck Drivers?
• What Is a Telemarketing Auto Dialer?